Management Challenges to NGOs

Management Ch solelyenges to non giving medicational organizations cosmosManagement has been defined by Weirich Koontz as the process of designing and maintaining an environs in which someones, work uping together in groups, effectively accomplish selected ends or goals (Weirich Koontz, 2005). They also submitted that instruction is applicable to all kinds of organizations ( worldly concern, lowcover, non for meshwork) and that no depicted object the organization, wanglers responsibilities atomic number 18 to plan, organize, staff, pack and control in such(prenominal) a demeanor that surplus is created authors (Werich and Koontz 2005). This surplus could mean profit as in the insular sphere of influence, or meeting a exact or having a positively charged effect, as in the non for profit sectors. So whether an organization was trim up in regulate to sell cars at a profit e.g. Toyota, or set up to meet the dire exacts of the pathetic e.g. Food Aid, counsellin g is important if the goals atomic number 18 to be met.How ever, while the magnificence of attention in all spheres of human living has been highlighted by roughly(prenominal) authors, the reality of non authoritiesal organization management differs significantly from what obtains in the Public or the Private sectors. Fundamentally, management or managerialism has non been a major fearfulness for many NGOs until genuinely recently. Why was this so? What argon the peculiar features of management in this sector? What atomic number 18 the important management challenges facing NGOs and wherefore ar they important? piece management challenges abound in all sectors, this essay will explore those peculiar in the management of NGOs in order to answer these questions. It will also critically analyse the reference instruction of device Literacy, a second African NGO to beautify how some of these challenges were responded to. The essay will direction more(prenominal) on the some important management challenges, which take a leak been taken to be leadership, funding, right, cognitive operation observe evaluation, and scaling up. There are many unalike kinds of NGOs, and for the mathematical function of this essay NGOs will be defined as are organisations that are non-political, non-profit, non- judicatureal, and accountable to their stakeholders and involved in welfare and socio-economic development of people (Rahman, 2007).why NGO MANAGEMENT?Since 1960, the number and size of non-profit organizations involved in planetary relief and development have gr suffer substantially (Carroll, 1992 Clark, 1991 Fisher, 1998 Fowler, 1998 Edwards, 1999). As the sector has expanded, it has been subject to new competitive pressures. In the past, the word management was considered alike with short letter management, but for NGOs, commercial activities are presumed to be against their non-profit mission and scored negatively. Since the tolerate two decad es NGOs themselves have realised the importance of management, and academicians along with NGO executives have also started thinking over the issues of vision, mission, strategic planning, goals, effective coordination and communication, human resourcefulness development, motivational strategies, bottom lines and leadership.Today more NGOs compete for increasingly meagerly donor resources. Both sequestered and institutional donors demand greater financial accountability and more concrete evidence of program impact. Small, in reck nonpareilnt NGOs describe it hard to keep pace with more efficient, handsomer ones that take advantage of economies of collection plate in marketing, operations, and support services. The world of competitive market kinetics presents unvoiced paradoxes to many who work in the NGO sector. They believe that their organizations strength, fuelled by the staffs primary motivation, is in its determination to help people improve their lives. only if i n this more competitive NGO world, it is no longer bountiful to simply have swell intentions and a immobile value orientation. As noted by Lindenberg (2001), those working in the NGO sector today recognize that NGOs that do not adapt their strategies and promote greater impact, efficiency, and accountability run the risk of bankruptcy as well as irrelevance. barely they fear that too much attention to market dynamics and mysterious and public sector techniques will destroy their value- base organizational culture.It has also been argued elsewhere that the management system for NGOs is supposed to be different from traditional management thoughts given by Fayols Modern Operational Management, Taylors scientific management and Webers bureaucratic Model, because of their distinctiveness in vision, mission, organisational culture, goals and values from the other two sectors (Rahman 2003). Stemming from Henri Fayols (1916) definition of management as forecasting, planning, organizi ng coordinating and control, Rahman (2003) gave a possible definition of NGO management To manage an NGO is to forecast with shared vision, to plan strategically, to operate professionally and to lead culture friendly. In this definition the word organise use by Fayol has been replaced by operate in order to give a more functional touch, and the word control has been replaced by lead because at that place is a minimum use of control in NGO management as the shared values of NGOs discourage the concentration of power at the hierarchical levels and in their functions.Having agreed that management has gained importance for NGOs, what then are the happen upon management challenges for NGOs? Though management challenges abound also in the public and private sectors, the NGO sector has a unique interlocking nature with its own characteristic management challenges ranging from funding worrys to leadership, performance supervise evaluation, accountability, scaling up, human resources, organization culture, and professionalization. The following sections will but focus on the first five challenges I believe a key in NGO management.FUNDING AND INDEPENDENCEFunding is a very major challenge in NGO management. NGOs require funds to displace out programs and maintain the organization. Unavailability of funds for an NGO could mean a total standstill. NGOs could most time depend on judicature for funding. However, NGOs that depend largely on public finance run the risk of suitable mere governing body subsidiaries by implementing activities formerly carried out by their own governments or multilateral institutions (Senillosa, 1998). Government policy may differ from the NGOs objectives and/or the beneficiaries interests, which may lead to a conflict of interest. The availability of substantial government grants may tempt NGOs or the program beneficiaries to shape involved in programs inconsistent with their own objectives and capacities. The sheer size of governme nt grants and certain government grant restrictions (specific countries, certain social groups, special forms of assistance) may lead to an unstableness in the NGOs programs. Some NGOs have, more or less, become contractors to governments, particularly if they do not have other programs or funding sources. NGOs may become unwilling to criticize government publicly thus s frequentlying their advocacy work and/or human rights campaigns.Also, as government funding may be comparatively easy to obtain, there is the risk of the NGO ignoring or smoothengrading their traditional sources of private funding and traditional relationships with their constituencies. In addition, as non-governmental go awayrs of development services, NGOs (and their programs) became subject to the availability of government funds (with associated uncertainty nigh magnitudes and timing), to some degree of governmental control and supervision, and to the rules and procedures that went with the receipt and use of public funds. This tended to call heavy and some quantify excessive requirements on NGO administrative and scrutinise capacities (Van Der Heijden, 1987).Another problem with funding is the issue of rejection of core funding- a pip whereby donors are only willing to pay project be. According to Bornstein (2003), NGO managers that are not competent enough to incorporate core costs within project proposals usually have their key functions not organism funded. Organizational development, experimental pi stagger approaches and long-term impact analysis are being abandoned due to lack of funds.Finally, financial uncertainty affects planning for NGOs. It has also forced them to look for more financial sources and adopt private sector-like methods like downsizing. Take for example shortage of funds is forcing many South African NGOs outside the donor loop to diversify income sources. They are redefining their relationships to the disk operating system and the market, taking on gover nment contract work, selling services to the private sector and charging user fees. Some have had to downsize and depend on short-run contract staff while others are experimenting with their legal status and twist into non-profit companies. (Bornstein 2003).LEADERSHIPLeadership in NGOs is a matter of concern considering the exceedingly personalized nature of leadership in the sector. The sector is full of anecdotal stories about the detrimental impact of paternalistic founder leaders, personal appealtic autocrats, or the guru syndrome (Hailey, 1999). On one hand such leaders demonstrate a drive and commitment, and a remarkable ability to mobilize people and resources. While on the other hand they are criticized for dominating organizations, being unaccountable, and helplessness to adapt to changing circumstances. Chambers (1997) points out that such NGO leaders can achieve many things through their guts, vision and commitment, but the track they use power is a disability that jeopardizes organizational effectiveness. He argues such charismatic leaders are vulnerable to acquiescence, deference, flattery and placation (Chambers, 1997). They are not easily contradicted or corrected. As a result they actively suffocate promising initiatives that may threaten their power base, relationships, or localise of patronage.The concept of leadership in NGO could also at times be antithetical to the participatory culture espoused by many NGOs. In a sector that believes itself to be more value driven, participatory, and less managerialist than the for-profit business sector, there is an unwillingness to concede the important influence of any one individual leader. Managers in this new era thus have to be conscious of the greater credence given to ideas of equality and participatory res publica in this sector if they are to succeed (Hailey James 2004).Effective NGO leadership also requires the ability to balance a range of competing pressures from different stakehol ders in ways that do not compromise the leaders individual identity and values (Hailey James 2004). The leadership of development NGOs character over-the-top challenges as they work with very enclosureed resources in uncertain and vapourific political and economic circumstances to help the most marginalized and disadvantaged members of their communities. Civicus referred to the suppuration deficit in leadership abilities in NGOs. In particular they pointed to quick turnover of NGO staff in leadership positions into business and government and the difficulty NGOs have in replacing them (Civicus, 2002). All too often this failure of leadership results in programmatic dysfunctionality and even organizational collapse.MONITORING AND EVALUATING accomplishmentNGOs are qualification significant efforts to show how they are performing, a apparent movement impelled by three factors stricter requirements attached to official aid doubts about NGO claims to be more effective than gover nments post-Cold War shifts in the voice of NGOs, which increase their own involve to know what is being achieved, in order to manage the processes of organisational reorientation and transformation. However, almost without exception, NGOs are finding it very difficult to come up with sound, cost effective methods to show the results of their development activities, or even to demonstrate their effectiveness as organisations (Fowler, 1996). Rick Davies attributed the problems of monitoring and evaluating the performance of NGOs to ambitious expectations, complexity caused by scale (hierarchical differences in goals and expectations at dissimilar actors levels), diversity of NGO activities, vague objectives, fault-able measuring tools, and absence of baseline culture adequate monitoring systems (Davies, 2000).Unlike commercial companies development NGOs do not have the bottom lines of market feedback, profitability, and returns on financial investment, nor do they produce the j udgement of citizens through social unrest or the periodic vote. In other words, consumers and voters are the source of performance standards for business and government- but not for NGOs (Fowler, 1996).According to LeCompte (1986), the difficulty in measuring the development performance of NGOs stems from the raw material incompatibility between the assumptions on which the aid system is based and the positive process of socio-economic change. Social economic change is mostly contingent as different from the linear model the aid system presupposes. There are three problems with this approach. Firstly, the right ways of doing things cannot all be sufficiently predicted in advance? Secondly, the assumptions seldom hold. And, thirdly, development in the sense of sustained improvement in the lives and circumstances of people who are poor or marginalised does not take place in a linear way under the influence of one genius intervention (LeCompte, 1986). As resources move down the aid chain, several things happen which undermine the project approach, and hence limit the ability simply to tie resources and activities to NGO performance in price of development?Furthermore, the measures of development are very complex, containing both tangible or physical elements and intangible factors of human and organisational processes and capacities. Also, the possibility of attributing the cause of change to an NGOs work is very restricted.ACCOUNTABILITYWho are NGOs accountable to, for what, and how? Concerns about the role and accountability of NGOs have been voiced from different quarters in recent years. As the World Bank (2005) noted, with growth in the influence of NGOs so also are they attracting greater public scrutiny, prompting calls for greater accountability. Some donors, governments, corporations, and planetary agencies raise important questions about the effectiveness of NGO work and the legitimacy of their advocacy. Some NGOs have also recognized the need to ensure good practice in the wider voluntary sector.The question of accountability is seen as a bureaucratic hurdle at best, and at worst as a threat to achieving an NGOs aims. Some fear that any toughening of accountability may lead to an overbearing influence from funders and governments, which could then lead to cooptation and a deflection of pi sight program purpose (Najam, 2000), or lead to the stymieing of innovation and reducing the diversity of NGOs (Cnaan, 1996).The problem of to whom accountability should be towards also arises many times. Accountability is usually upwardly to donors and not to the poor who are the most immediately concerned. NGOs just need to show that money is not being misappropriated and that the approved activities are completed rather than that desirable change was achieved, let alone sustainable. Bendell (2006) however argued that democracy and human rights should firmly be at the centre of the dig about NGO accountability. By democratic acco untability he meant that NGOs should be more accountable to those with less power who are affected by the organizations actions or decisions the poor.SCALING UPMuch has been said about the need for NGOs to increase the impact they are having rather than applying thin piecemeal efforts to large scale problems of poverty. Edwards and Hulme (1992) described strategies for scaling up to meet this demand for more impacts. Some NGOs are contented to focus on a single small community within which they work taking a small is beautiful approach to their work (Lewis 2001). Edwards and Hulme (1992) noted three kinds of scaling up for NGOs as additive (increase size and coverage of programs), multiplicative (gain more leverage by influencing other development actors, thereby reaching more people), and dispersive (transferring its approaches beyond the organizations immediate sphere of influence). Bangladesh Grameen Bank was able to effectively manage the challenge of the scaling up process. The bank impacted a lot of poor people in the immediate community, but rather than growth any larger as an implementing organization, it encouraged the adaptation of its original microcredit manner of speaking model around the world (Lewis 2001).CASE STUDY PROJECT LITERACY, sulfur AFRICAThis case study is about Project Literacy, an NGO based in South Africa. The NGO was founded in 1973 by Jenny Neser to help domiciliate an opportunity for non-educated marginalized workers to learn how to read, write and learn other basic sprightliness skills thereby tackling the problem of very low educational level in the society (projectliteracy.org.za). Just like most NGOs, it started with the leader identifying a need in the society which neither the government nor the private sector is making provision for. The NGO started out making use of church facilities for the bringing up and getting volunteer teachers to help out with the breeding. Much of the funds at this initial stage were from the founders purse and little fees affordable by the beneficiaries. make up at this early stage, some other churches too started to copy Project Literacys plan, thereby increasing their impact (multiplicative scaling up). In 1985, the NGO enrolled up to 200 learners in its Adult Basic information Training (ABET) programme and had an annual budget of approximately R4000.The first major turnaround however came when the NGO received a donation of $10,000 ( value R33, 000) from USAID. With this, the NGO registered Project Literacy depone Fund, and with additional fundraising drive, built its first mini office. By 1990, trainings for community based organizations and commercial clients were initiated. This helped in further diversifying the NGOs income source. The program also enjoyed a lot of support from other bodies like the South African Council of Churches and the Independent maturation Trusts which both gave funds for the further development of an ABET teacher training program me and development of suitable ABET materials. The NGO was able to produce its central office in 1994 through a donation from the crossroads Education Trust.However, the direct funding enjoyed by most South African NGOs from inter study donors soon dried up. With democracy in South Africa in 1994, donors began entering into bilateral agreements with the elected government rather than directly with NGOs, resulting in the folding up of most NGOs. This highlights the centrality of funding to the operations of these NGOs and probably their overdependence on it. Project Literacy however, was able to survive this period by identifying the opportunity in this challenge (Farouk, year unknown). The new Government saw the need to provide sector wide training to meet the education and skill needs of its work force and the unemployed. This was done through the establishment of Sector Education Training Authorities (SETA) e.g. agriculture SETA will attend to needs in agriculture. Project Liter acys strategy was to build capacity to tender effectively for government contracts, and the organization moved from direct delivery to service delivery. It also restructured its financial management structure, retrained staff, and adopted a robust marketing strategy, all of which were not normal practices in the sector. This sort of bold move required strong leadership able to venture into areas not treaded before. By 1999, the NGO had gained national notoriety, with offices in all of South Africas provinces.Also critical to Project Literacys advantage was its leadership structure. Unlike most other NGOs that depend on the charisma of the leader and his influence or connections, Project Literacy was able to put in place a standard structure with board of trustees and board of directors, with a management team. By 1995, Jenny Neser the founder resigned and a new chief operating officer was appointed. Continuity was thus ensured.Growth however has its challenges, and Project Literacy s biggest challenge ever came in 2010 when it lost a major government contract worth R 90m. By this time the organization spent up to R1.2m periodical to maintain its offices nationally. The loss of this contract resulted in the need for the organization to remainder all its provincial offices and lay off 47 out of its 78 staff members (Independent online, 2010). This highlights the danger of a growth dependent on government funding, and also the danger of additive scaling up. Politics could play a major role in who gets governments contract, and a domineering monopoly might not be the best mode for NGOs to adopt in their bid to scale up. Whether or how Project Life will be able to bobby pin the current management challenge remains a question to be answered, but the lessons learnt from it will be invaluable to every aspiring NGO.In conclusion, this essay has highlighted the importance of management with respect to NGOs and how it differs from management in the public or private s ectors. It has also considered the management challenges of leadership, funding, accountability, monitoring evaluation, and scaling up as the most important management challenges facing NGOs. The case study of Project Life has shown that management in the NGO sector could be likened to a rollercoaster ride, monumental success could bear with it seeds for colossal failure. NGOs in the foreseeable future will have to continue to work in a very unpredictable environment, adapting quickly as the need may be in order to survive diverse challenges that will continue to face them.